Notities bij boeken

Emma RUSH / Andrea LA NAUZE
Letting Children Be Children - Stopping the sexualisation of children in Australia
The Australia Institute, Discussion Paper Number 93, December 2006 (revised), 60 blzn.; ISSN 1322 5421

Summary

(1) Introduction

"There is strong feeling around Australia that during childhood, and certainly during the pre-teen years, children should be free to develop at their own pace, in their own ways. The widespread public discussion that followed the release of the Australia Institute’s discussion paper number 90, Corporate Paedophilia (Rush and La Nauze 2006), made it clear that many Australians believe that the sexualising pressure the advertising and marketing industries exert upon children restricts their freedom to develop at their own pace and in their own ways. While parents do their best to protect their children from such pressure, many feel that they are losing the battle. Children are only likely to be able to develop freely if government assists parents by limiting this sexualising pressure at its source – advertisers and marketers." [mijn nadruk] (1)

(5) 2. Community attitudes

[Weergave van enquêtes die duidelijk moeten maken hoe groot de 'zorg' is die Autraliërs voelen over de rol van de media. Goed dan heb je geïnventariseerd hoe mensen zich op dat punt voelen. Maar dan nog kan het heel goed zijn dat al die mensen zich om niets zorgen maken en de verkeerde dingen voelen. Op basis van die gevoelens is er ook al actie ondernomen:]

"Surf Life Saving Australia proposed prohibiting photography of its junior members on beaches without written permission from parents (Clark 2005). Given such levels of concern about photographs of children engaged in everyday activities, it would be surprising if Australians were not concerned about the deliberately sexualised images of children used in advertising and marketing."(6)

[Ja, want die mensen die foto's maken van kinderen op het strand moeten wel pedofielen zijn - het is vast ook heel schadelijk voor de kinderen dat mensen zo maar foto's van hen maken. Het tweede deel van het citaat laat verder zien dat Rush-LaNauze stemmingmakerij niet uit de weg gaan.]

[Vervolgens beschrijven de auteurs de kritiek die er langer in de media bestond op hoe kinderen door marketing en zo gebruikt worden, vooral in de VS en de UK. Ze noemen christelijke en conservatieve bronnen, maar ook wel wat kritiek op de standpunten daar van anderen. Desondanks: waarom die keuze?]

"Parents around the world are concerned and angry about childhood being interrupted so soon by premature sexualisation."(9)

"The sustained public criticism of the sexualisation of children has had no apparent effect upon the practices of advertisers and marketers. If they acknowledge the issue at all, they insist they are only responding to children’s demand. Such an inadequate response to both public and professional concern about the increasing sexualisation of children suggests that the advertising and marketing industry is unlikely to restrain itself." [mijn nadruk] (11)

(13) 3. Current regulation

Uitgebreide beschrijving van de regulatie van de media in Australië, van de diverse vanuit het publiek ingediende klachten en van hoe daar door de betrokken instanties mee wordt omgsprongen.

"The fact that sexualised advertising is now so commonplace is unsurprising given that it has been overwhelmingly allowed by former AS Boards in spite of the many public complaints received."(24)

(37) 4. The need for better regulation

"With a restructure of the regulatory environment for Australian media, the establishment of a division within an office of media regulation to protect children’s interests with respect to all forms of media would acknowledge the increasing importance of media in children’s lives. In particular, it would be able to address the ways in which children are now much more heavily targeted by advertisers and marketers than they were in the past. At the same time, it would allow parents more choice about the ways in which they introduce issues related to sex and sexuality to their children. At present, unless children are kept at home with tight and constant supervision of their media consumption, that choice is being taken out of parents’ hands." [mijn nadruk] (38)